(Douglas Lackey outline ~ Lackey is
ATTACKING pacifism)
The NUMBERS below are the four types, not the section numbers in the
essay.
- UNIVERSAL version prohibits all
killing (but allows some violence)
(a) Version based on "the Hebrew Bible"/Old Testament is
misguided; it clearly does not prohibit all killing, because it
demands killing in some circumstances. Murder, not killing, is
prohibited.
(b)
Belief in the sacredness of all life (all life? all
animal life? all human life?) points to questions of
proportion (sometimes killing a few will save more) and
discrimination (where to draw the line where a behavior merely risks
death?)
(c)
Another defense of the universal prohibition against killing: Appeal to a right to life. REPLY: rights can be defended
- UNIVERSAL version prohibits all
violence
(a)
Radical Christianity (Sermon on the Mount) seems inconsistent with
other passages
(b)
If we appeal to (non-religious/Kantian) universalization of
behavior, is it of non-violence, or restricted to
self-defense? The latter is equally plausible.
(c)
Ghandi's teaching that non-violent alternatives are always possible.
REPLY: why are alternative forms of coercion (psychological &
economic) any better?
- PRIVATE version that prohibits
personal violence or killing
Augustine tries to reconcile Sermon on the Mount with military force;
e.g., justice requires police & armies to preserve society.
PROBLEM: Once formed, we do not know when individuals will be
instructed to be violent on behalf of society for unjust reasons.
SOMEONE has to give the order to use force, and someone else must
obey. It's still a case of individuals doing the violence! Doing it
"on behalf" of the state does not generate any justification that
differs from what we have in private life.
Therefore, it seems inconsistent: how can we value communal self-defense but not private?
- ANTI-WAR version (self-defense is
okay, but war is not: there is no "just war")
War is never justified because the "last resort" is never reached -
because of this, soldiers should
surrender, or refuse to fight. They don't HAVE to kill others.
REPLY: Defenders should have the right of communal self-defense
Problem of civilian dead. REPLY: Doctrine of double
effect -- this is no different than setting a higher speed limit
when we know that a lower limit would save lives
Proportionality problem: does any war ever produce a greater good?
(Russell)
|